You are delibrately refusing to understand the arguements put forth by
me in an effort to "win" this "debate". You have an incredibly
idealistic view of world politics, and do not seem to comprehend what
diplomacy is about. I suggest once again that you brush up on your
history so as to be convinced that Britain (definitely) has not done
anything for another nation without a hidden agenda favouring the
British Crown. As for my "logical fallacies", you may engage me in
your trivial wordplay but I hope you realise that the atrocities
committed by the British on the Indian freedom-fighters (who, followed
a path of non-violence) will serve as a reminder to coming generations
of the lengths to which the English were ready to go in order to
secure their political objectives. In today's world, it is probably
the U.S which is following this policy of "power and influence at all
costs" The attempts to encourage subversive movements in China in
order to spread capitalist U.S propaganda in that country (in the name
of intellectual freedom) are only evidence of this. Again, Geni your
statement "...like most of the world they (Britain) weren't bothered
about the rights of Africans" casts light on the Caucasian belief in
their superiority over other races and even over the Asian-Aryans-who
are basically of the same race as Nordic people (the "harrenvolk). You
yourself have conceded that the U.K would help Poland (which was a
Causasian country, in close proximity to England), but not Abyssinia.
This proves that England's help was (at the least) racist in nature. I
rest my case.